The receiving stuff is great, but this list is about running backs. You gonna hold it against Jim Brown cuz he doesn't have the receiving yards and catches?

I'm not disputing Faulk's value, just saying his receiving talents don't merit any place in this discussion.

Being a receiver is apart of playing the position, so it definitely belongs in the conversation. So does blocking. You can't takeaway responsibilities from the position.

For the record, Jim Brown wasn't a bad receiver. In fact, I believe many regard him as a pretty good pass-catcher for his time. Walter Payton also had outstanding hands. It only adds to their value at the position. It’s not any different from pointing out pocket presence when evaluating quarterbacks or cover skills when evaluating linebackers.

Receiving the ball and rushing the ball are two different things altogether. Whereas a quarterback having pocket presence directly relates to him being a quarterback. Very poor example.

Faulk played with Peyton Manning and Kurt Warner and played indoors a lot and yet Curtis Martin didn't share that luxury and didn't have a prolific offense to take the load off of him ... yet Martin still ran for more yards. I'm not knocking Faulk, just saying it's pretty clear when you remove bias of the "flash" that ESPN gives us ... Martin was the better running back. However, with a team having an offense say like the Packers, Faulk would be the pick hands down. But a team that is more of a ground and pound, they'd want Martin.

I think Martin hit the 70 mark receiving without an MVP quarterback or pass happy offense. Then again, he may have had those receptions because he was the dump-off guy on a team with no receivers!! lol

Faulk only played with Peyton Manning for one year. Manning was still far away from becoming the quarterback we know today. In fact, Faulk was the primary focus of that offense. I'd also point out Faulk had a ton of success with Jim Harbaugh at quarterback. There's a common theme here. He was the featured player in every offense he played in, including the greatest show on turf.

The list provided is top 10 running backs. The writer even mentions LaDainian Tomlinson’s capabilities as a receiver and Walter Payton's ability as a blocker. He clearly is factoring in other metrics in ranking the running backs. Every position requires different responsibilities. Receiving and blocking are apart of playing running back. There is no way around that fact. Pocket presence or mobility is apart of playing quarterback. You can't takeaway Steve Young's mobility. You can't add mobility to Dan Marino. Cover skills matter for linebackers and safeties. Tackling factors into evaluating a corner.

How much you include certain aspects into evaluation is subjective. Bill Parcells probably would prefer a grinder of a running back. Earl Campbell is his type of player. Bill Walsh would prefer more versatility. Gale Sayers is his type of player. I have no problem with a philosophical debate. However, I take issue with the comment that receiving doesn't have any merits in a discussion about running backs. It does and it always will.

My beef with the NFL list would stem from the omission of Marshall Faulk. Faulk is the most underrated running back in NFL History. He was a 1,000-yard threat running and receiving from 98-01. Props to Hazer for recognizing Faulk’s achievements. Many people overlook him.

](*,) You completely missed my point and didn't even answer my question! lol

Curtis Martin ran the ball better than Marshall Faulk. The numbers support that, especially considering he did it outdoors where Faulk did it indoors with several weapons on the offense taking the focus off of him. Martin was often the only offensive threat on his team. But you can't punish a guy for being in a good situation.

So I ask once again ... why bring up Faulk but not Martin? I think both should be in the discussion of ten best running backs of all time. Curtis Martin didn't get to 4th all time rushing leader by sitting on the bench eating hot dogs.

Martin lost less fumbles during his career, but produced only a 4.0 for yards per carry. Curtis Martin brought the Jets to an AFC title game his first season with them as well. I like how you didn't mention that at all.

Receiving the ball and rushing the ball are two different things altogether. Whereas a quarterback having pocket presence directly relates to him being a quarterback. Very poor example.

Faulk played with Peyton Manning and Kurt Warner and played indoors a lot and yet Curtis Martin didn't share that luxury and didn't have a prolific offense to take the load off of him ... yet Martin still ran for more yards. I'm not knocking Faulk, just saying it's pretty clear when you remove bias of the "flash" that ESPN gives us ... Martin was the better running back. However, with a team having an offense say like the Packers, Faulk would be the pick hands down. But a team that is more of a ground and pound, they'd want Martin.

I think Martin hit the 70 mark receiving without an MVP quarterback or pass happy offense. Then again, he may have had those receptions because he was the dump-off guy on a team with no receivers!! lol

For someone that is so fact happy Zero you dropped the ball on this lol.

Faulk played with Manning 1 year and that was Mannings rookie year (watch out for that lol) and his first year in St Louis he played for a 3rd string QB in Kurt Warner. You forget Trent Green was suppose to be that teams QB. How can you say take receiving out of this, that is part of being a running back. If you want to talk like that I guess Sayers wasn't much he got his fame from being a returner not a RB.

For someone that is so fact happy Zero you dropped the ball on this lol.

Faulk played with Manning 1 year and that was Mannings rookie year (watch out for that lol) and his first year in St Louis he played for a 3rd string QB in Kurt Warner. You forget Trent Green was suppose to be that teams QB. How can you say take receiving out of this, that is part of being a running back. If you want to talk like that I guess Sayers wasn't much he got his fame from being a returner not a RB.

I am saying if we're gonna mention Marshall Faulk for all time top ten running backs, why not mention the 4th overall leader in rushing yards? If we overlook Curtis Martin for lack of being a receiving threat, why not do the same to Barry Sanders then? Good ahead, pick that fight with me, lol.

](*,) You completely missed my point and didn't even answer my question! lol

Curtis Martin ran the ball better than Marshall Faulk. The numbers support that, especially considering he did it outdoors where Faulk did it indoors with several weapons on the offense taking the focus off of him. Martin was often the only offensive threat on his team. But you can't punish a guy for being in a good situation.

So I ask once again ... why bring up Faulk but not Martin? I think both should be in the discussion of ten best running backs of all time. Curtis Martin didn't get to 4th all time rushing leader by sitting on the bench eating hot dogs.

Martin lost less fumbles during his career, but produced only a 4.0 for yards per carry. Curtis Martin brought the Jets to an AFC title game his first season with them as well. I like how you didn't mention that at all.

My issue isn't why Faulk and not Martin. That's not what I've been talking about. I actually believe Martin is a top 10 running back of all-time. I never said otherwise. I think Faulk is a top five running back of all-time, though, which makes his omission from the list more bizarre, in my opinion. That’s the only reason why I mentioned Faulk first and not Martin or said anything at all.

So I like Martin. I actually agree with you. Hell of a player and should be in the Hall of Fame one day. He's probably eight, nine, or 10 if I were to make my own list.

My issue was this....

Zero2Cool said:

I'm not disputing Faulk's value, just saying his receiving talents don't merit any place in this discussion.

You can devalue Faulk's receiving capabilities or attribute it to a fast turf. I don't think turf helps running backs as much as you think, but having a philosophical difference doesn't bother me. I happen to elevate a player's versatility in my rankings. I think it's important. Maybe you don't. Fair enough. However, you can't throw it out of the discussion altogether. It belongs in the discussion. The original article even includes receiving in its rankings.

I have a huge issue with putting Smith anywhere near the list. He should be outside the top 100 all time.

He averaged a 4.2 per for his career. Which is fairly mundane.

He also should have retired about 4 years before he did. When his YPC dropped below 4, he was done being productive and was taking up carries to get a record.

He had a couple of good years, but not all time good. The only thing that really sets him apart, is he played about 4-5 years longer than anybody else who was decent. If he had not, he wouldn't be close to the record.

If Jim Brown, Gayle Sayers or Barry had played for 15 years, Emmit would never have caught them.

That is why I hate career total records. If you are the only guy to play that long, even mediocrity will give you a couple records.

Like Favre for example. His only competition is Vinny Testeverde and Steve DeBerg. If he didn't hold a crap load of career total records, he would have had to be worse than both of those two. Who were both basically backups for half of their careers. It is a testament to how bad Vinny was that he leads only Favre in total games lost in the NFL.

You also have to consider the Cowboys the O-line. One of the best ever. Emmit literally had to run 3 yards untouched and fall down for a 4.2 ypc average. Also one of the reasons he lasted as long as he did. Sanders was making moves 2 yards in the backfield and still getting 5 per. He out worked and out produced Emmit 7 to 1.2.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.